- - Statue of David
(http://www.mothering.com/forum/44-case-against-circumcision/819418-statue-david.html)

5gifts

12-31-2007 02:16 PM

Well.... DH has decided to restore, & was struck by a thought, ...is Michelangelo's David circ'ed? King David was Jewish. He found a picture & he is intact. .....Does anyone know the history of this? Just curious!!
Or was it just a snip that only took off the over-hang?!?

perspective

12-31-2007 02:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 5gifts

Well.... DH has decided to restore, & was struck by a thought, ...is Michelangelo's David circ'ed? King David was Jewish. He found a picture & he is intact. .....Does anyone know the history of this? Just curious!!
Or was it just a snip that only took off the over-hang?!?

I think it was because the artist was copying an older greek style, and along with that style, penises were meant to be small and uncut. (big penises were seen as animalistic and gross)

thixle

12-31-2007 02:37 PM

oooh! Art major here!
He was copying the older greek style, which revered the idolized "perfect" body- if he were cut, he would not be "perfect." He would be positively indecent to the Greeks that saw him. Exposing the glans was seen as animalistic and gross. (I don't know when it became Jewish custom to remove more than just the tip)... Oh, and the model Mikey worked with would have been intact as well.

The proportions of David's body are totally different from the Greeks because the statue was meant to stand on top of a building. His head/face/hands are bigger than lower torso and legs to fool perspective- so that when gazing UP at the statue, he looks to be in proportion, hence a smaller penis than his hands/head would suggest with Greek proportions.

5gifts

12-31-2007 03:32 PM

Thanks, that's neat to know!

YK, as far as the uncovered glans goes - my oldest 2 are circ'ed, and the 2 little guys are intact - and something in me just finds it, well, 'less indecent', when they are running around nakey. ( compared to when the big ones did - they don't anymore LOL! they both probably have hair now - not that I've SEEN!)

Equuskia

12-31-2007 04:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thixle

oooh! Art major here!
He was copying the older greek style, which revered the idolized "perfect" body- if he were cut, he would not be "perfect." He would be positively indecent to the Greeks that saw him. Exposing the glans was seen as animalistic and gross. (I don't know when it became Jewish custom to remove more than just the tip)... Oh, and the model Mikey worked with would have been intact as well.

From what I understand, when Abraham circumcised, it was originally a snip. When the Jews began to participate in the Greek gyms and whatnot, they would pull their foreskin forward to cover the glans (or would hang weights to stretch the foreskin to cover), as exposed glans were considered rude. This is apparently when Jewish leaders decided to take off more skin, in order to prevent Jewish men from having anything to work with, as a deterrent (I assume) to participating in the Olympics.

Quote:

Originally Posted by thixle

The proportions of David's body are totally different from the Greeks because the statue was meant to stand on top of a building. His head/face/hands are bigger than lower torso and legs to fool perspective- so that when gazing UP at the statue, he looks to be in proportion, hence a smaller penis than his hands/head would suggest with Greek proportions.